1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree in O.S.No,20/2005 dated 30th August 2006, dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:

The appellant - plaintiff before the Trial Court is the full brother of defendant No.4; they are the sons of Muddurao, whereas defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the son and daughter of Aannaraya arid defendant No.2 is the wife of Annaraya; Muddurao and Annaraya were full brothers; they were said to be the members of a joint family. The family owned the lands bearing 1) Sy.No.72/1 later numbered as C.S. NO.106/A measuring 9 acres b guntas, 2) Sy. No.72/2 later numbered as C.S.No.l06/B measuring 8 acres 12 guntas, 3) Sy. No.5/2 later numbered as C.S.No.11 measuring 5 acres and 4) Sy. No.74/2 measuring 8 acres 37 guntas; Muddurao and Annaraya had purchased the property bearing Sy. No. 5/2 in the year 1956, whereas the land bearing Sy.No.74/2 was sold in the said year; the parties continued in joint possession of the remaining properties.

4. As contended by the plaintiff, there was an oral partition in the year 1959. In the partition, the lands bearing Sy.Nos.72/1 and 72/2 (C.S.NO.106/A and C.S.NO.106/B) which are the suit properties said to have fallen to the share of the father of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant; they were said to be the dry lands; the other property bearing Sy.No.5/2 (C.S.No.11) measuring 5 acres which is said to be an irrigated land said to have fallen to the share of Annaraya, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the husband of defendant No.2; the plaintiff's fathers name came to be entered in the record of rights all along till he died in the year 197b and thereafter, the names of the plaintiff, defendant No.4 and another brother who died unmarried later were entered; they claimed that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the oral partition and the defendants 1 to 3 have no right title or interest of whatsoever type in it.

5. Later there was some dispute between the parties relating to the entries in the record of rights and the matter went upto Assistant Commissioner in RTS appeal. At the relevant point of time, there was an obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties of the plaintiff. The 4th defendant is said to be supporting defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is in these circumstances that the suit came to be instituted seeking relief of declaration that the suit properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 and for injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to restrain them from causing obstruction to their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

6. The 1st defendant has filed his written statement denying the averments made and it is his specific contention that the oral partition was in the year 1958 and in the said partition, the suit Sy.No.72/1 (C.S. 106/A) fell to the share of his father, whereas suit Sy. No.72/2 (C.S.No.106/B) fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father. It is also contended that the land bearing Sy.No.5/2 (C.S.No.11) was continued to be in joint possession of the parties. He also submits that there is a mutation entry in this regard, which was never challenged by the plaintiff and defendant No.4. Therefore, he has denied the averments that the suit properties are in possession of the plaintiff absolutely and he has also denied the alleged obstruction. It is his specific contention that Sy.No.72/1 (C.S.No.106/A) is in possession of defendants 1 to 3 all along since from the date of the partition and as there was illegal mutation entry, the lame was challenged before the appropriate authorities. He submits that the plaintiff got a mutation entry created in the year 1999 on the basis of a report relating to the death of his father. It is on these gro